‘Language policy - too important to be left to politicians’
Expanded version of the speech of Prof
Rajiva Wijesinha, MP at the closing session of the ‘Global Languages
Meet’ on January 8 at the Adivasi Academy, Tejgadh, India
I should begin by thanking Dr Ganesh Devy for giving us yet another
fascinating and stimulating day. It was a wonderful experience to come
today to the Adivasi Centre he has set up, and to participate in the
exhibition of photographs of their ancestors that he has managed to
bring together here, from archives of the colonial period in Cambridge
and Leipzig. Those two names make clear the serious scholastic nature of
the use made of those photographs, but it is more heartening to see the
human reactions of people whose ties to their community are so
important, when faced with these early records of their lifestyles.
I am not so sure that I should thank him for asking me suddenly to
speak at this closing session at which he would like ideas exchanged
about how we are to move forward, with regard to the work we have
participated in over the last few days. I am not a linguist, and his
work and yours in promoting the study of languages that might otherwise
be lost is beyond my area of expertise. However, perhaps I might make
some suggestions based on my understanding of the very human element he
had helped us to share.
Heritage sites
Though I must admit I was more fascinated by the old mosque at
Champaner, one of India’s less well known heritage sites, I was involved
on the way here in a discussion on the People’s Linguistic Survey, the
first fruits of which were launched in Varodara yesterday. There were
suggestions that the methodology employed might not have been precise,
given the vast range of volunteers involved, and the impossibility,
except possibly through an official census, of knowing exactly how many
people spoke any language, and at what levels.
|
Learning a
language helps to interact with others. File photo |
But I am not so sure that such precision is required. Whilst one
appreciates the careful work of linguists who concentrate on analysis of
a small compass of data, whether to trace patterns or to pronounce on
the particular usages and spread of their chosen language, a survey of
the languages of a country has necessarily to be more impressionistic.
The pioneering work of Grierson nearly a century ago, to which this
exercise is the first successor, was by modern standards amateur, but
Grierson’s sheer commitment, his involvement with people over
practically all India, his capacity to apprehend connections rather than
establishing them with analytical precision, has made his work of
continuing value for those who require an overview of India’s linguistic
diversity, to pursue their own particular interests in the field,
whether analytical, pedagogical or policy formulation.
Dr Devy’s effort was I think even more remarkable, in that he
involved so many committed students of language in the process. The
range of individuals who had contributed who were present yesterday, and
who will be inspired by the publication to pursue their own work, is the
best testament to the enduring value of the current Linguistic Survey.
They make it clear that language study is too important to be left to
the professional linguists. Whilst linguists obviously have much to
contribute, their perceptions are only a part of the truth. Language in
the end belongs to people, and it is their contributions, in terms
however imperfect of their own understanding of usage and of the
community to which they belong, that are most vital for an overview.
Linguistic survey
In case it seems as though I am playing down the role of linguists
since I am not one myself, let me say the same, as the only politician
here, however unsuited I am to that role, about politicians. In a sense
my assertion harks back to what I tried to suggest yesterday about
language policy, that it is too important to be left to professional
politicians. We will all have our own views about what will be best for
others, but when it comes to something as central to people’s lives as
language, I believe people should make the decisions. Thus, while I
believe we must ensure, where it is possible, that education in the
mother tongue is available, we must also allow people's choice.
Similarly, whilst linguists might wish to preserve the purity of the
languages they study, they cannot prescribe usage, which should be left
to those who actively use the language.
We must remember after all that languages have developed with swift
changes over the years in the past, until the invention of printing to
some extent contributed to ossification. That has changed now with the
advent of new media which is much more interactive as compared to print,
and sharing and transformation is the rule, as swift as in the ages
before the written word set usages down firmly.
Different ways
So this shifting scene is one reason why the current Linguistic
Survey is so timely, and I hope that all of you who have contributed to
this, both the Indian academics and teachers and volunteers who have
collected and collated data, and international supporters and advisers,
will also be able to move forward on Dr Devy’s idea of a People’s World
Linguistic Survey. I do not think this should be left to formal bodies
only, for I would agree with his deft characterization of for instance
UNESCO, which one might suggest should take the lead in such an
exercise, as an admirable body in terms of its dreams, but its lack of
an alarm system to summon it to work means that much time will pass
before it embarks on such a necessary task.
For, with the changes taking place all over the world, such a task
should take place soon. It may not be possible to preserve in usage the
languages that are dying out as modernization reaches all areas of the
globe, but we must try to record them. We must tabulate those usages
which enlarge our perspectives in showing the different ways in which
different people assess the world and the experiences it offers. We must
trace similarities that help us understand better the way in which the
world has developed and people have moved and interacted.
For this we need linguists, but we also need enthusiasts who can
communicate and record and classify, with commitment to their work and
the people they work with. It is a task that offers much to those who
undertake it, as much as to those who will look upon the picture that is
created. I hope therefore that all those here who have appreciated the
life Dr Devy and his surveyors have brought to language will assist in
expanding the reach of this exercise. The world can never be too much
with us, it deserves to be recorded.
|